Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: lindahl@xxxxxxx (Greg Lindahl)
- Date: 29 Jun 2008 15:34:23 -0700
In article <2008062720414243658-dannagle@verizonnet>,
Dan Nagle <dannagle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
On 2008-06-27 20:07:56 -0400, lindahl@xxxxxxx (Greg Lindahl) said:
programmers asked for what ended up being 36 bit variables when 32
would have worked most of the time.
Pray please explain how the kind system
allows the requirement of bit-sizes.
Your computer is binary, not decimal, right? So if you ask for a kind
which doesn't fit into 32 bits, you have a requirement that your type
won't fit into 32 bits. If we're talking about an integer, then this is
extremely inefficient on a processor which doesn't have any integer
type in hardware bigger than 32 bits.
-- greg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: Dan Nagle
- Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- References:
- Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: Clive Page
- Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: Dan Nagle
- Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: Greg Lindahl
- Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- From: Dan Nagle
- Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- Prev by Date: Re: bug in g95 with character arrays?
- Next by Date: Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- Next by thread: Re: Is it time to legitimise REAL*8 etc?
- Index(es):